Unexplained infertility

A. Boes, D. De Neubourg, K. Peeraer, C. Tomassetti, C. Meuleman, T. D’Hooghe
{"title":"Unexplained infertility","authors":"A. Boes, D. De Neubourg, K. Peeraer, C. Tomassetti, C. Meuleman, T. D’Hooghe","doi":"10.1002/9781119072980.ch14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1516 www.thelancet.com Vol 392 October 27, 2018 within and outside academia is crucial and timely. However, we wish to highlight a key concern that was insufficiently add ressed in the Comment. Not all women in academia have equal privileges, and thus, systemic cyclical biases and structural sexism affect women differently. Therefore, we urge the academic community to commit to gender justice by choosing an intersectional approach to address the biases in publishing resulting from differential power and privileges bestowed in the scientific establishment. Intersection ality recognises these interdepen dent and overlapping systems of discrimination. As women in academia, we attest to the fact that our existence in the professional space is dictated by a confluence of identities, rather than our gender alone. These identities include, but are not limited to, age, disability, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and personal histories not readily classified. We have experienced and witnessed that interactions of identities have a multiplicative rather than additive effect on our participation in the scientific community. However, inadequate attention is paid to how systemic biases extend beyond select individual identities. Furthermore, an intersectional approach to counter the complex interaction of various identities that ascertain our relative privilege is absent. Lundine and colleagues point to the urgent need to collect the data required to describe the extent of gender biases in publishing. The nuance of collecting selfreported gender as opposed to sex to understand the scope of bias in publication is a promising first step that recognises the fluidity and complexity of identities. To further this trajectory, we recommend the following steps. First, the academic community, and specifically journals and publishers, should create platforms for sharing diverse perspectives on discrimination, beyond a few permutations of relatively privileged identities. Second, informed by these narratives, we should expand the list of prioritised indicators for data collection. Fin ally, analytic frameworks should incorporate an intersectional approach to identify, and ultimately address, equity disparities. This purposeful intersectional approach to gender equity would bring together isolated social justice efforts within academia, fundamentally enriching the scientific community.","PeriodicalId":250776,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119072980.ch14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

1516 www.thelancet.com Vol 392 October 27, 2018 within and outside academia is crucial and timely. However, we wish to highlight a key concern that was insufficiently add ressed in the Comment. Not all women in academia have equal privileges, and thus, systemic cyclical biases and structural sexism affect women differently. Therefore, we urge the academic community to commit to gender justice by choosing an intersectional approach to address the biases in publishing resulting from differential power and privileges bestowed in the scientific establishment. Intersection ality recognises these interdepen dent and overlapping systems of discrimination. As women in academia, we attest to the fact that our existence in the professional space is dictated by a confluence of identities, rather than our gender alone. These identities include, but are not limited to, age, disability, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and personal histories not readily classified. We have experienced and witnessed that interactions of identities have a multiplicative rather than additive effect on our participation in the scientific community. However, inadequate attention is paid to how systemic biases extend beyond select individual identities. Furthermore, an intersectional approach to counter the complex interaction of various identities that ascertain our relative privilege is absent. Lundine and colleagues point to the urgent need to collect the data required to describe the extent of gender biases in publishing. The nuance of collecting selfreported gender as opposed to sex to understand the scope of bias in publication is a promising first step that recognises the fluidity and complexity of identities. To further this trajectory, we recommend the following steps. First, the academic community, and specifically journals and publishers, should create platforms for sharing diverse perspectives on discrimination, beyond a few permutations of relatively privileged identities. Second, informed by these narratives, we should expand the list of prioritised indicators for data collection. Fin ally, analytic frameworks should incorporate an intersectional approach to identify, and ultimately address, equity disparities. This purposeful intersectional approach to gender equity would bring together isolated social justice efforts within academia, fundamentally enriching the scientific community.
原因不明的不孕
1516 www.thelancet.com Vol 392 2018年10月27日学术界内外至关重要且及时。然而,我们希望强调评论中没有充分强调的一个关键问题。并非学术界的所有女性都享有平等的特权,因此,系统性的周期性偏见和结构性性别歧视对女性的影响不同。因此,我们敦促学术界致力于性别公正,选择一种交叉的方法来解决由于科学机构赋予的不同权力和特权而导致的出版偏见。交叉性承认这些相互依存和重叠的歧视系统。作为学术界的女性,我们证明了这样一个事实,即我们在专业领域的存在是由身份的融合决定的,而不仅仅是我们的性别。这些身份包括但不限于年龄、残疾、所属机构、国籍、种族、性取向、社会经济地位和不易分类的个人历史。我们已经经历并目睹了身份的相互作用对我们参与科学界的影响是倍增的,而不是相加的。然而,人们对系统性偏见如何超越特定个人身份的关注不够。此外,缺乏一种交叉的方法来对抗确定我们相对特权的各种身份的复杂相互作用。Lundine和同事们指出,迫切需要收集数据来描述出版中性别偏见的程度。收集自我报告的性别与性别之间的细微差别,以理解出版中偏见的范围,是认识身份的流动性和复杂性的有希望的第一步。为了进一步实现这一目标,我们建议采取以下步骤。首先,学术界,特别是期刊和出版商,应该创建平台,分享不同的歧视观点,而不仅仅是相对特权身份的几种排列。其次,根据这些叙述,我们应该扩大数据收集的优先指标清单。最后,分析框架应该包含一种交叉方法,以确定并最终解决公平差异。这种有目的的两性平等交叉方法将把学术界孤立的社会正义努力汇集在一起,从根本上丰富科学界。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信